Software development deadlines. They haunt our dreams, ruin our weekends, and yet, somehow, we’re always shocked when we miss them. From tiny web projects to colossal AAA games, the software industry has an infamously bad reputation for blowing past deadlines and budgets. But how do software engineers manage to be worse than, say, the folks who bid on highway systems?

The Known Unknowns: We Sort of Know What We’re Dealing With

Before we tackle the real villain, let’s touch on the “known unknowns.” These are the things we anticipate will pose questions or challenges. When a project kicks off, developers huddle with domain experts to map out the grand plan. This early phase is rife with questions:

  1. Architectural Trade-offs: “Should we use Framework X for rapid development? Will it scale if our user base explodes?”
  2. Technical Feasibility: “Is there a library that does what we need? Do we have to build it from scratch?”
  3. Project Management Triangle: “Do we write quick-and-dirty code now, knowing we’ll refactor later, or aim for scalability and security from the get-go?”

These questions are predictable and somewhat manageable. We know they’ll pop up and can plan (read: guesstimate) for them. But then come the…

Unknown Unknowns

Unknown unknowns are the sneaky, unpredictable gremlins that can throw a project into chaos. They are the reason even the most detailed plans can blow up spectacularly.

Examples of Unknown Unknowns

So, what do these elusive unknown unknowns look like in practice? Here are a few examples:

  • The Market/Product Changes: This is the most common. When you’re building software you are building it for an end user with a purpose in mind. But you can never know FOR SURE that you’re building the right thing. You will only really know what needs to change when you first watch a user play with it. That’s why it’s so important to get it into the hands of real users as quickly as possible.
  • Emerging Technology Changes: A new version of a critical framework or library is released midway through your project, rendering your current approach obsolete.
  • Unforeseen Integration Issues: An external API you depend on changes or is deprecated without warning, requiring significant rework. This literally happened to me this week, and I spent two days fixing a problem that worked the first time with the old API. And this was a tiny python script and a Make.com workflow… not some giant HIPAA compliant stack that has five engineers working on it. That kind of change could mess up a project by months.
  • Unexpected User Behavior: During testing, users interact with your software in completely unanticipated ways, uncovering bugs and usability issues that require substantial fixes. Think of yourself as an explorer here; learning new ways your system can be used, and how users can f*@&k it up.
  • Regulatory Changes: New laws or industry regulations come into effect, necessitating changes to your software to remain compliant.
  • Team Changes: Key team members leave the project, taking with them critical knowledge and slowing down progress as new members are onboarded.

The Exploratory Nature of Software Development

Software development often feels like your are Indiana Jones navigating a jungle with a half-baked map. Sure, you have a rough idea of where you’re going, but the terrain can change unexpectedly. When developers estimate how long a task will take, they’re picturing a perfect world scenario. It’s tough to convey to managers or clients—who often see programming as a kind of magic—why one feature is a cakewalk and another is a nightmare.

Agile vs. Waterfall: Why Flexibility Matters

This is why traditional waterfall methodologies, which demand every detail be nailed down upfront, often fail in software development. Designing everything on paper without accounting for unforeseen problems is a recipe for disaster. Agile methodologies, with their iterative and flexible nature, help mitigate the chaos of unknown unknowns by allowing for continuous reassessment and adaptation.

Agile is by no means perfect though. Agile projects fail for different reasons: scope creep, running out of budget, not being disciplined in prioritizing features, not launching quick enough, over-engineering, and plain old building bad software.

The Myth of Big Design Up Front

Big design upfront (BDUF) robs software of its most powerful trait: adaptability. The ability to iterate, update, and improve on the fly is crucial. Agile approaches embrace this, understanding that no one can predict every challenge. The flexibility to pivot based on real-world feedback and emerging obstacles is what keeps projects on track—relatively speaking.

Making Software Development More Predictable

While we can’t eliminate all the unknowns, there are strategies to make software development more predictable. The problem is that most of this stuff makes you slow down. There is always a trade off. So enjoy!

  1. LAUCH EARLY AND OFTEN: Get your system into the hands of real users as soon as possible. If you’re not embarrassed to let users play with it, you’ve launched too late. I just wrote about this.
  2. Adopt Agile Methodologies: Agile frameworks like Scrum and Kanban promote iterative development, continuous feedback, and flexibility, making it easier to adapt to changes and unforeseen issues.
  3. Frequent Check-ins and Reviews: Regularly scheduled reviews, stand-ups, and retrospectives help catch issues early, before they spiral out of control.
  4. Automated Testing: Implement a robust suite of automated tests to catch regressions and integration issues early in the development process.
  5. Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD): Use CI/CD pipelines to automate the deployment process, ensuring that new code integrates smoothly with existing systems.
  6. Risk Management: Proactively identify potential risks and develop contingency plans to address them if they arise.
  7. Maintain a Flexible Architecture: Design systems with modularity and scalability in mind, allowing easier adjustments as requirements evolve.
  8. Clear Documentation: Ensure comprehensive and up-to-date documentation so that new team members can quickly get up to speed and existing members can easily reference past decisions.
  9. Cross-Training Team Members: Promote knowledge sharing and cross-training within the team to prevent project delays if someone leaves or is unavailable.

Embrace the SOME of the Chaos

Software development is messy, unpredictable, and often maddening. But by recognizing the difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and embracing methodologies that allow for flexibility, we can navigate the chaos more effectively. Next time a deadline whooshes by, remember: it’s not (just) about poor planning. It’s about the nature of the beast itself.

In the end, the key to handling software project deadlines is accepting that some things will always be out of our control. So, let’s embrace SOME of the chaos, adapt on the fly, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll get a bit closer to hitting that elusive target. And if not, there’s always more tea, whiskey and a good sense of humor to see us through. Although that will never make your boss our your client happy.

Previous ArticleNext Article
I help companies turn their technical ideas into reality.

CEO @Sourcetoad and @OnDeck

Founder of Thankscrate and Data and Sons

Author of Herding Cats and Coders

Fan of squash, whiskey, aggressive inline, and temperamental British sports cars.

Leave a Reply

The State of AI-Coded Software, May 2025

I’ll probably regret writing this. At the very least, I’ll cringe reading it in a few months. But here we are.

Lately, we’ve been getting a wave of client requests asking us to evaluate software they built using AI tools. These aren’t engineers. These are business folks using increasingly powerful AI products to try and build functioning systems. And to be completely honest, the results are both impressive and a bit alarming.

People are building whole applications on their own. Backends, frontends, user interfaces, even some database logic. Sometimes they even look good. These are smart people who don’t know how to code but have managed to produce working systems.

The problems show up immediately when we start reviewing the internals. The code is usually a mess. In many cases, it would be extremely difficult to maintain or extend. And if you need to move that code from the platform it was created in to a cloud provider like AWS, you’re going to hit a wall. These platforms wrap everything in layers of scaffolding that make portability a nightmare.

Security is worse. We’ve found plaintext credentials scattered across files. We’ve seen SQL injection vulnerabilities that shouldn’t even be possible in modern frameworks. We’ve seen structural issues that would get flagged in a freshman CS class.

Despite all that, what people are creating are legitimate prototypes. They’re functional. They run. But when you’ve put a few weeks into building something, and you show it to a software engineer, it’s hard to hear that your shiny new thing needs to be rebuilt from scratch.

I want to be clear. I am not anti-AI. Almost everyone at my company uses AI tools every day. We use Copilot, Cursor, ChatGPT, Claude, and more. We build out frontends with tools like v0 and Lovable. These tools have changed how we work.

Some of our engineers report productivity improvements of 30 to 40 percent. That’s not a rounding error. That is a major shift. But they are still writing the code. They are reviewing it. They are checking for performance, clarity, security, and maintainability. They are not letting the tools decide architecture. They are using AI like they use autocomplete or linters, but with more power behind it.

This is also where expectations need to be adjusted. These systems will not save you 90 percent on development. They will not let you skip engineering altogether. But if they save you 30 percent, that’s a real gain. Imagine you’re building a house. The general contractor says it’s going to be $500,000. You tell them you already did the blueprints, filled out all the permits, and figured out the site plan using some AI tools. If they came back and said, “Alright, I’ll knock 30 percent off,” that would be the best deal of your life. That’s where we are today with AI-generated software. A solid start. A real value. Not a replacement.

For me personally, AI has made it fun to write code again. I haven’t been a working programmer in over a decade, and most modern toolchains are enough to scare me off. Now, with the right assistance, I can build something without getting stuck on Docker configs and dependency mismatches. That’s a big deal.

In the startup world, AI-first development is everywhere. Most of the current Y Combinator batch is using AI tools to write the bulk of their code. But those teams are highly technical. These are engineers using better tools, not tools replacing engineers.

So for non-developers using AI to build products, here are three things you should keep in mind:

  1. These tools are great for building prototypes. If you build something yourself, you will understand it better and will be a better partner to your engineering team. That matters.
  2. These tools can help you build usable frontend components. You probably won’t want to go live with them, but they can get you close enough to work with a real development team.
  3. If your app is small, non-critical, doesn’t store sensitive data, and lives entirely in its native platform, you can probably keep it running. That’s fine for internal use or personal projects.

One day, you’ll be able to speak an app into existence and deploy it with a voice command. It will be fast, secure, and beautiful. But today, you still need an experienced software engineer to check your work before you send real data through it. That’s just where we are right now.

The upside is huge. We can now get experts from other domains to build working prototypes and test ideas without needing an engineering team on day one. That’s powerful. But if your product is going to handle sensitive data or support real users, bring in someone who knows what they’re doing. Not because the AI is bad. Because the stakes are high.